EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

Could anyone point me to some cogent, well-formed arguments for why censorship of social media platforms is a good idea? i.e. books, articles, etc?

I have some thoughts but would like more perspective before fully forming an opinion.

(not arguing one way or the other below)

For example, I’d like to understand the defining characteristics of social media platforms that contrasts them from traditional public forums that have existed through history. And what about those characteristics would make one think that physically removing questionable speech would be effective in preventing the underlying event, crime, movement, or social change the speech was attempting to facilitate.

Comparing Twitter, say, to a literal town square — we don’t ask the air in the town square to stop transmitting the vibrations of someone who is speaking in a dangerous manner or trying to incite some action that might harm others or damage social structures. Instead we use normal human social interactions to mediate the speaker’s effect on listeners — countering their arguments, questioning their credibility or motives, telling others an opposing viewpoint, letting a person’s past speech affect their reputation, etc. We leverage our social nature and counter speech with more speech. (The prominent exception being threats of violence which are treated differently legally)

In all the years of human history before social media, there have been countless examples of insurrections, of hateful acts inspired by a few, of coups, of routine crimes, of widely believed mistruths, etc. So obviously individuals in those societies were able to communicate and organize without social media (and in many cases without any electronic communication at all). Which means that access to social media is not a necessary condition for bad events to happen or bad social phenomena to spread. And therefore these things will find a way to continue to happen even if all social media communication were terminated.

My naive assessment is that social media is different than a physical town square in: - Its anonymity / dehumanized nature - Its built-in amplification of controversial ideas (ie the algorithms of town square air does not carry further just because a statement raises eyebrows) - Its speed - … but there must be more?

Basically, why is making the “digital air” in the "digital town square" not vibrate better than utilizing (and perhaps reinforcing) the social structures that moderated public forums in the analog world?

1. "Trial by combat" means one person fights one other person, and the victor is considered "right."

2. And note the context! In this case it is clear that he is speaking of a one-on-one challenge where reputation is at stake, not life or limb, and where the combat is making the evidence public. Watch the video. Don't take my word for it: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1346847382768676864

I'm no Rudy fan, and I'm not going to try to justify what Trump and other Republicans have been doing, but give me a break. If Cranley isn't inciting, then neither was Rudy.

> For example, I’d like to understand the defining characteristics of social media platforms that contrasts them from traditional public forums that have existed through history.

They are privately held.

I found their response underwhelming as well.

I am tentatively willing to accept that these are simply applications of free speech and section 230, provided that the EFF prompt governments to write legal frameworks for what these platforms can and cannot do.

It is not acceptable to have companies this large, and this influential, 100% unaccountable to democracy.

Surely the EFF will say that Amazon shouldn't be forced by the state to provide their services to a company they don't want to.